The End of War

[Hockeycowboy]

We can look at archaeologic finds, e.g. graves and bones, to see how many people were connected with warfare and how many died a violent death.

To some degree. But without knowing their rites and customs, which are found in written records, it amounts to guessing.

 

[Heyo]

To some degree. But without knowing their rites and customs, which are found in written records, it amounts to guessing.

Informed guesses with material evidence. With written records we also have to guess how much of it is accurate and how much is exaggerated or simply invented.

 

[Augustus]

I had an uni professor who also worked for DARPA.

Bear F. Braumoeller (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is a Professor in the Department of Political Science. He previously held faculty positions at Harvard University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is or has been on the Editorial Boards of five major journals or series, and he is a past Councilor of the Peace Science Society. In the summer of 2016 he was a Visiting Fellow at the Nobel Institute in Oslo, Norway.

I'm with you on that one. But unlike you I don't see war as a force of nature. The elimination of war is unrealistic for the near future but I don't see it as impossible. Human nature (at least most humans nature) is not murderous. Most people don't want war. They get drawn into it through stupidity, laziness and fear by a handful of psychopaths. Keep the psychopaths in check and war ends.

I don't see war as the preserve of "psychopaths".

I always find this Arthur Koestler quote sums it up best:

"Even a cursory glance at history should convince one that individual crimes committed for selfish motives play a quite insignificant part in the human tragedy, compared to the numbers massacred in unselfish loyalty to one’s tribe, nation, dynasty, church, or political ideology, ad majorem gloriam dei... homicide committed for selfish motives is a statistical rarity in all cultures. Homicide for unselfish motives is the dominant phenomenon of man's history. His tragedy is not an excess of aggression but an excess of devotion... it's loyalty and devotion which makes the fanatic."

Humans are animals and we evolved with certain tendencies. There is a limit to the extent we can mitigate these.

For me, the idea we can transcend our nature is just a form of salvation narrative be it religious or secular.

Both are equally fantastical.

Clearly we must have something like the UN and it must have more power (and should be more democratic and egalitarian).

The problem with a more democratic UN is that you end up with Saudi Arabia chairing councils on women's rights, and China chairing them in human rights and so forth.

The world is not secular, rational, Liberal European in nature.

A call for World government is usually the desire for others to be more like "us", not a desire to have our "rational" wants curtailed by foreigners with "problematic" cultures we find distasteful.

 

[Heyo]

I don't see war as the preserve of "psychopaths".

I didn't say war was the preserve of psychopaths, I said instigating war is the preserve of psychopaths.
Psychopath meaning here a person who doesn't understand human suffering or not caring about it. What can be more psychopathic in nature than starting a war?

I always find this Arthur Koestler quote sums it up best:

"Even a cursory glance at history should convince one that individual crimes committed for selfish motives play a quite insignificant part in the human tragedy, compared to the numbers massacred in unselfish loyalty to one’s tribe, nation, dynasty, church, or political ideology, ad majorem gloriam dei... homicide committed for selfish motives is a statistical rarity in all cultures. Homicide for unselfish motives is the dominant phenomenon of man's history. His tragedy is not an excess of aggression but an excess of devotion... it's loyalty and devotion which makes the fanatic."

He calls it loyalty and devotion, I call it stupidity.

Humans are animals and we evolved with certain tendencies. There is a limit to the extent we can mitigate these.

Humans didn't evolve to be gathered to be shipped to attack foreign countries for the benefit of a few capitalists and the detriment of the country they are are supposed to serve.
Nobody in their right mind would start a war like the second Gulf war. That's why the war mongers have to lie to talk people out of their mind.

For me, the idea we can transcend our nature is just a form of salvation narrative be it religious or secular.

If by "our nature" you mean fear and stupidity, you may be right. Aggression on a global scale is not our nature (except for the mentioned psychopaths).

 

[Stevicus]

I don't see war as the preserve of "psychopaths".

I always find this Arthur Koestler quote sums it up best:

"Even a cursory glance at history should convince one that individual crimes committed for selfish motives play a quite insignificant part in the human tragedy, compared to the numbers massacred in unselfish loyalty to one’s tribe, nation, dynasty, church, or political ideology, ad majorem gloriam dei... homicide committed for selfish motives is a statistical rarity in all cultures. Homicide for unselfish motives is the dominant phenomenon of man's history. His tragedy is not an excess of aggression but an excess of devotion... it's loyalty and devotion which makes the fanatic."

Humans are animals and we evolved with certain tendencies. There is a limit to the extent we can mitigate these.

For me, the idea we can transcend our nature is just a form of salvation narrative be it religious or secular.

Both are equally fantastical.

I would say that peer pressure within society is also a strong element, possibly related to loyalty and devotion, but also to the shared, collective outrage (after some egregious incident) which precipitates a call to war. The attack on Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are two such incidents which managed to galvanize public opinion in favor of war.

I was just commenting in another thread where I was recollecting the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-81, at which time I observed people who were previously anti-war peaceniks (influenced by the Vietnam era) suddenly turn into outraged warmongers who were openly advocating the nuclear destruction of Iran.

I would suggest that it's the outrage that turns otherwise peaceful, civilized people into maniacs and psychopaths. It's not just the devotion and loyalty by itself. There has to be some outrageous event which triggers the collective anger required to influence the masses to support war.

The problem with a more democratic UN is that you end up with Saudi Arabia chairing councils on women's rights, and China chairing them in human rights and so forth.

The world is not secular, rational, Liberal European in nature.

A call for World government is usually the desire for others to be more like "us", not a desire to have our "rational" wants curtailed by foreigners with "problematic" cultures we find distasteful.

The UDHR could serve as world bill of rights which would be legally binding in all nations. In such a world, there would be no "Saudi Arabia" or "China" or even "America."

 

[Augustus]

I didn't say war was the preserve of psychopaths, I said instigating war is the preserve of psychopaths.
Psychopath meaning here a person who doesn't understand human suffering or not caring about it. What can be more psychopathic in nature than starting a war?

For many people starting a war is the lesser of 2 evils regarding something that is happening or something that may possibly happen in the future.

Thinking only psychopaths start war is not going to get us anywhere imo.

The idea that violence is some kind of "error" caused by "irrationality" is no different from the idea that sexual desire (or even love) is an error that needs to be fixed as they are "irrational" and do not maximise utility.

The latter sounds ridiculous, but was seriously

He calls it loyalty and devotion, I call it stupidity.

Whatever you call it, it is part of our nature and won't be going away absent significant changes to our genetic makeup.

No amount of education or positive thinking can transcend millions of years of evolution.

Humans didn't evolve to be gathered to be shipped to attack foreign countries for the benefit of a few capitalists and the detriment of the country they are are supposed to serve.
Nobody in their right mind would start a war like the second Gulf war. That's why the war mongers have to lie to talk people out of their mind.

I disagree. Plenty of people in their right mind did start the Gulf War and most of them did it for noble reasons.

Yes it was ****ing stupid, ludicrously naive and bound to fail, and they should be held accountable for the suffering caused but hubris is as intrinsically human as love and hate.

Using violence to speed up "progress" and spread "the right values" is as old as civilisation. For them, the end justifies the means. People often do bad things with good intentions: there is no reason to believe "rationality" tends towards peaceful humanism and plenty of historical proof that it often does not.

If by "our nature" you mean fear and stupidity, you may be right. Aggression on a global scale is not our nature (except for the mentioned psychopaths).

Aggression is part of our nature, as is a desire for power and status. When we have the capability to project this globally then global aggression is an inevitable consequence.

The idea that movement towards a peaceful and tolerant, liberal democratic world is some kind of 'goal' or teleology for humanity is ideological rather than based in fact. Western liberals are a small minority of humans and human cultures.

Thinking their views are the universal product of rational thought is just an offshoot of monotheistic universalism.

How much of your preferred way of life would you willingly sacrifice to lower the risk of conflict?

At what point would you think "enough is enough" and start to push back increasing the risk of conflict (or at least hope that other people would start to push back)?

 

[Augustus]

I would say that peer pressure within society is also a strong element, possibly related to loyalty and devotion, but also to the shared, collective outrage (after some egregious incident) which precipitates a call to war. The attack on Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are two such incidents which managed to galvanize public opinion in favor of war.

I was just commenting in another thread where I was recollecting the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-81, at which time I observed people who were previously anti-war peaceniks (influenced by the Vietnam era) suddenly turn into outraged warmongers who were openly advocating the nuclear destruction of Iran.

I would suggest that it's the outrage that turns otherwise peaceful, civilized people into maniacs and psychopaths. It's not just the devotion and loyalty by itself. There has to be some outrageous event which triggers the collective anger required to influence the masses to support war.

I agree that social forces have a role, collective emotion is a very powerful evolved trait. The problem is we cannot help but divide ourself into in/out groups, so these forces will always remain.

Think about US politics. A small, bit not inconsiderable % of liberal, humanistic people against war, violence, inequity and intolerance delight in unvaccinated Republicans dying of covid.

The UDHR could serve as world bill of rights which would be legally binding in all nations. In such a world, there would be no "Saudi Arabia" or "China" or even "America."

It could do if everyone agreed with it, but they don't. That's the problem, calls for 'world government' always demand on others become more like "us".

Would you seriously like there to be no nations though? A democratic global government would likely be less reflective of your values given the West is a tiny minority of humanity.

 

[Heyo]

Whatever you call it, it is part of our nature and won't be going away absent significant changes to our genetic makeup.

No amount of education or positive thinking can transcend millions of years of evolution.

I think we already did that. Our current behaviour is more influenced by culture and education than by our hormones. Yes, we still have the urges but we also have the ability to control them. And it has become the norm in everyday life. People still succumbing to them are called criminals or psychopaths and we lock them up.
(At least we do in the country where I live. Ymmv.)

It is only on the level of nations where uncontrolled urges are still not universally frowned upon, were psychopathy can be called "rational" or "noble".

I disagree. Plenty of people in their right mind did start the Gulf War and most of them did it for noble reasons.

Please list a few.

Yes it was ****ing stupid, ludicrously naive and bound to fail, and they should be held accountable for the suffering caused but hubris is as intrinsically human as love and hate.

At least we agree on that. Though I'm not sure Hanlon's razor applies here ...

Using violence to speed up "progress" and spread "the right values" is as old as civilisation. For them, the end justifies the means. People often do bad things with good intentions: there is no reason to believe "rationality" tends towards peaceful humanism and plenty of historical proof that it often does not.

... because, as you say, rationality (as the process to reach a goal through meditated steps) may be at play here. Only that the goal was to fill the coffers of Blackwater (or however they called themselves at that time) with US tax dollars. In that case; goal accomplished.
The stupidity lies with those who let them do it and let them get away with it.

Aggression is part of our nature, as is a desire for power and status. When we have the capability to project this globally then global aggression is an inevitable consequence.

The idea that movement towards a peaceful and tolerant, liberal democratic world is some kind of 'goal' or teleology for humanity is ideological rather than based in fact.

As is the idea that wars are good or inevitable.
The movement towards peace and tolerance is not "god-given", it is a goal we give ourselves and we have to work hard for it and we'd have to step on the toes of some psychopaths on the way.

How much of your preferred way of life would you willingly sacrifice to lower the risk of conflict?

At what point would you think "enough is enough" and start to push back increasing the risk of conflict (or at least hope that other people would start to push back)?

Fortunately I live in the EU, which has done major steps to lower the risk of conflict, sacrificing national pride on the way. For some that was "enough is enough" and they left. They are now wondering if that was a rational decision.

 

[wellwisher]

That is the discussion.

How can we end war?

It seems easy, let's try peace for a while and if peace does not work we could aways go back to war.

I see it will need to be initiated by a world wide effort, that will set specific goals to prevent war.

What about the Goals, what would they need to be?

Here are some thoughts.

1. A world elected body that has power to legislate and power to enforce what has been agreed to.
2. Boundaries of all Nations agreed to and set, the voice of the people heard in this process.
3. Elimination of extreme wealth and poverty, this may be need guiding legislation.
4. Education for every child guaranteed.
5. Equality of women with men guaranteed.

So let's discuss, what would you add to the list that will need a global effort to implement?

View attachment 59639

Regards Tony

War began with the rise of civilization. It was originally natural and was caused by humans over breeding and depleting natural resources in their areas of settlement, This caused hardship and induced the need to expand. This put them in contact with those who defended territories that were being invaded. Human breed too fast and depleted natural resources.

The analogy is a herd of deer that over populates an area. If they do not move into other territories, to find more foods, they will face famine and disease. If they can find new food, beyond their home territory, they might be able to avoid the inevitable.

However, they are not the only herd of deer in the large forest, so their migration, in part of full, may cause a natural and balanced eco-system to lose balance for its inhabitants. But since the invaders are desparate they do not see beyond the short term need and gain, so they invade. The war will kill off or drive out the excess deer and help restore natural balance. If nobody died and the herds continue to grow and merge, dire straights would never end. They need to skinny down back to a natural manageable size.

Modern war extrapolates on this schema. It is not only about natural resource needs but adds the needs of the ego, beyond the need of the natural body; food, water and shelter.

It could be based on gold and bling, which defines ego hierarchy; money and value. In this case, the perception of starving for the ego causes expansion for gold. This feeds the ego

The ego is where different belief systems will also come in contact. War was not designed to just to thin the herd for natural balance, but also to overthrow weak belief systems that were obsolete in favor of the more advanced culture; Rome.

The losers are killed or forced to upgrade; assimilate, by being part of the more advanced culture. Germany and Japan were forced to become more American. As an early example, slavery of the Jews to the Egyptians allowed the Jew to develop many of the higher level skills of the Egyptians, that made them better able to defend themselves and prosper in the future. Moses had the advantages of an education within the power hierarchy of Egypt. God had use for his upgrade. The Egyptian educated Moses would lead the Jews so they could upgrade as new composite culture. The American Blacks are among the most advanced in the world compared to those who remain in Africa. This is based on cultural assimilation to an advanced culture.

Modern war is different in that it is often based on paranoia and an attempt to stay one step ahead of the bogeyman. The paranoia can be real tor caused by projection from self serving egos. Putin, for example, sees NATO as getting too close to Russia, by trying to recruit Eastern European counties into NATO. Russia feels the need for an Ukrainian buffer zone like the old Soviet Union. Many Russians still remember WWII and Germany and not having that buffer zone.

The Democrats, who are in power in the USA, caused instability for Russia. The two faced Insurrectionists Democrats, who politically attacked Putin, for their own political gain during the collusion delusion, added doubt and paranoia to Putin, since he cannot know the truth with two-faced people. Putin may not agree with Trump, but his one face makes Putin less paranoid. He can prepare for a single face without wild cards.

One way to lower the need for war is to not allowed two faced people in positions of power since they cause instability in other nations, leading to paranoia.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

One way to lower the need for war is to not allowed two faced people in positions of power since they cause instability in other nations, leading to paranoia.

I would agree, we definitely need people in power who practice the virtues of trustworthiness and truthfulness.

They are the foundation of all Virtues and that is what we should look for in leaders.

So much dishonesty prevails now, that for some weird reason it is accepted and become a tactic for a vast majority?

All the best, Regards Tony

 

[Augustus]

I think we already did that. Our current behaviour is more influenced by culture and education than by our hormones. Yes, we still have the urges but we also have the ability to control them. And it has become the norm in everyday life. People still succumbing to them are called criminals or psychopaths and we lock them up.
(At least we do in the country where I live. Ymmv.)

It is only on the level of nations where uncontrolled urges are still not universally frowned upon, were psychopathy can be called "rational" or "noble".

I'm very doubtful we have evolved significantly. Cultures can be changed back.

Society is not simply the aggregate of individuals. Mass societies develop emergent characteristics that amplify individual failings.

Please list a few.

There are plenty of publications by neocons that outline their ideology (see Project for a New American Century)

The original neocons were former Trotskyists and later Dems before seeing the Republicans as most likely to support their foreign policy goals (hence neocons)

... because, as you say, rationality (as the process to reach a goal through meditated steps) may be at play here. Only that the goal was to fill the coffers of Blackwater (or however they called themselves at that time) with US tax dollars. In that case; goal accomplished.
The stupidity lies with those who let them do it and let them get away with it.

The idea that "the goal" was to enrich Blackwater is silly.

There are plenty of easier ways to do that.

Now people certainly milked the cash cow for all they could, but that wasn't the reason for the war.

As is the idea that wars are good or inevitable.
The movement towards peace and tolerance is not "god-given", it is a goal we give ourselves and we have to work hard for it and we'd have to step on the toes of some psychopaths on the way.

It may be your goal, others have a goal to make everyone Muslim and live in a global cakiohate, or introduce global communism, or create a racially pure ethnostate.

The problem is human goals are often incompatible.

Which is why one size fits all approaches are not likely to produce peace as people will push back.

Fortunately I live in the EU, which has done major steps to lower the risk of conflict, sacrificing national pride on the way. For some that was "enough is enough" and they left. They are now wondering if that was a rational decision.

That doesn't answer the question to what extent would you be willing to compromise your way of life for peace? Would you become Muslim and live in a caliphate governed by sharia? Or is it only "peace on my terms"?

But the EU is a good example of how even the most benign transnational governance, among rich culturally similar countries and in times of relative stability produces pushback and will ultimately fracture.

Now increase the size and diversity and complexity and ideological incompatibility exponentially and see how well it will work.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

For me, the idea we can transcend our nature is just a form of salvation narrative be it religious or secular.

Both are equally fantastical.

Yet there is art and there is science and there is inventions that do assist us break the laws of nature.

We can open our mind to what we are capable of, and that is the ability transcend our animal condition to give instead of take and consume.

Regards Tony

 

[Heyo]

There are plenty of publications by neocons that outline their ideology (see Project for a New American Century)

The original neocons were former Trotskyists and later Dems before seeing the Republicans as most likely to support their foreign policy goals (hence neocons)

"PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."" - Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia

We had a few of those kind of people but we don't see them as "noble". (Except in the meaning that they were nobility. See Kaiser Wilhelm.)

The idea that "the goal" was to enrich Blackwater is silly.

Well, it is what happened. And to assume that was the goal is not that silly because that was what happened with all the wars before. Silly is to expect different outcomes from the same repeated behaviour.

It may be your goal, others have a goal to make everyone Muslim and live in a global cakiohate, or introduce global communism, or create a racially pure ethnostate.

The problem is human goals are often incompatible.

Which is why one size fits all approaches are not likely to produce peace as people will push back.

What goals you pursue in your country is of no interest for this discussion, only the questions if you are willing to keep it in your country. I'm not dreaming of a global peaceful society like a rose-tinted spectacle wearing hippy - just about an international ban on attack wars. One of the first things kids (should) learn in kindergarten is that violence is not acceptable. Most do and those who don't end up in prison (or in politics). And that is pretty universal.
It is only on the level of nations that we don't apply the "violence is bad" lesson learned in kindergarten.

 

[Heyo]

I'm very doubtful we have evolved significantly. Cultures can be changed back.

I'm puzzled by your utter nihilism, negative image of man, lack of compassion and negative outlook on life. I mean, I am the one who is early retired because of depression but man, you are doom and gloom all over. What experience brought you to that dark place?

 

[Augustus]

We had a few of those kind of people but we don't see them as "noble". (Except in the meaning that they were nobility. See Kaiser Wilhelm.)

I didn't say they were noble, I said their goals were noble (spreading democracy) albeit ridiculously naive and counterproductive.

Well, it is what happened. And to assume that was the goal is not that silly because that was what happened with all the wars before. Silly is to expect different outcomes from the same repeated behaviour.

Why do you think people from dozens of countries, including much of the EU supported it?

What about intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens?

To enrich Blackwater? Seriously?

What goals you pursue in your country is of no interest for this discussion, only the questions if you are willing to keep it in your country. I'm not dreaming of a global peaceful society like a rose-tinted spectacle wearing hippy - just about an international ban on attack wars. One of the first things kids (should) learn in kindergarten is that violence is not acceptable. Most do and those who don't end up in prison (or in politics). And that is pretty universal.
It is only on the level of nations that we don't apply the "violence is bad" lesson learned in kindergarten.

It already is banned under international law.

The problem is people ignore it when they want to. Perhaps because the war is "humanitarian" or simply because no one will stop them as it would create a bigger war.

I agree people have to live and let live, but this requires decentralisation not global governance.

Even then it can only mitigate the threat, there will always be war, not least because peace requires deterrence hence military force will always be there. Some people will use it and the only way to stop warmongers is war.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree that social forces have a role, collective emotion is a very powerful evolved trait. The problem is we cannot help but divide ourself into in/out groups, so these forces will always remain.

Think about US politics. A small, bit not inconsiderable % of liberal, humanistic people against war, violence, inequity and intolerance delight in unvaccinated Republicans dying of covid.

I'm not sure how many people actually delight in people dying of COVID. That could also be a reflection on the culture itself, since there are some rather callous aspects of how we look at things.

It could do if everyone agreed with it, but they don't. That's the problem, calls for 'world government' always demand on others become more like "us".

Would you seriously like there to be no nations though? A democratic global government would likely be less reflective of your values given the West is a tiny minority of humanity.

I don't really expect any government to be reflective of my values, and for the most part, the US government never reflected my values.

I don't think most people in the world would want to become more like us, nor do I believe a world government should impose that upon them.

But most people seem to respond favorably to fairness and equality. They may not want to be like us, but many seem to want to have as much as us. World migration patterns of people moving from poor areas of the world to wealthy areas of the world would be evidence to support this point.

The question then would be, does the world have enough resources to provide every family in the world the same standard of living as in the West? If not, why not? And if there's not enough to go around, then the governments of the West (especially that of the U.S.) have been acting incredibly irresponsibly since World War 2. The population of the world was only about 2.5 billion back then, but they've let it get out of control.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm very doubtful we have evolved significantly. Cultures can be changed back.

Many Muslim Persians in the middle of the 1800's were changed dramatically by a Message of peace.

Change is as simple as a concious choice, backed by the much more difficult actions.

But they were able to put down their arms and learn war no more and educate their female offspring as well as give them equality.

Regards Tony

 

[Heyo]

I didn't say they were noble, I said their goals were noble (spreading democracy) albeit ridiculously naive and counterproductive.

Spreading democracy? You really believe that or think they believed that?
I can't give the benefit of the doubt (Hanlon's razor) to someone in a position of knowledge when the level of stupidity required for that would also make them practically unable to live unassisted.

Why do you think people from dozens of countries, including much of the EU supported it?

What about intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens?

To enrich Blackwater? Seriously?

Greed and/or stupidity, mostly. Some were sponsored by their own military industrial complex, others acted out of national pride. Obviously it is still a sign of international importance to partake in illegal attack wars.

It already is banned under international law.

Not really. There are rules of war but ...

The problem is people ignore it when they want to. Perhaps because the war is "humanitarian" or simply because no one will stop them as it would create a bigger war.

... if nobody is enforcing those rules, they aren't worth the paper they are written upon. I don't know if anyone could stop the US from attacking whoever they like but when Russia is up to no good, there are immediate economic consequences, embargoes, tariffs, seized assets, etc. Nothing like that happened to the US, not even after it was revealed that they had lied about the WMDs.

I agree people have to live and let live, but this requires decentralisation not global governance.

Without "global governance" there is no guarantee to "live and let live" as there is always the threat of war.

Even then it can only mitigate the threat, there will always be war, not least because peace requires deterrence hence military force will always be there. Some people will use it and the only way to stop warmongers is war.

Nope. There are other ways.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We can’t determine societies’ structures, before written records.
Which, BTW, began about 5300 y.a.

You are forgetting Jericho (9,000 BCE) and Gobekli Tepe (9500 and 8000 BCE) among many others.

I would agree, we definitely need people in power who practice the virtues of trustworthiness and truthfulness.
So much dishonesty prevails now, that for some weird reason it is accepted and become a tactic for a vast majority?

Talking of the democratic world, they are ruled by elected people. As they say, 'we get what we deserve'. Do you have a better solution?

Many Muslim Persians in the middle of the 1800's were changed dramatically by a Message of peace.

Whatever it was, practical or silly, fake or genuine, it did not change Iran.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The path to end war is central to the Message of Baha’u’llah, so it may be beneficial to offer some more of those thoughts and what actions may be required.

It has been offered that, "The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established."

it goes on to say that, "This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded."

It appears that the end of war will not be any time soon, as if these are the prerequisites, then this discussion has shown mankind is not yet considering that is an option.

So it is offered a lesser peace is required and how to obtain that lesser peace has been layer out in this advice.

"....The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world’s Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation. We fain would hope that the kings and rulers of the earth, the mirrors of the gracious and almighty name of God, may attain unto this station, and shield mankind from the onslaught of tyranny. …The day is approaching when all the peoples of the world will have adopted one universal language and one common script. When this is achieved, to whatsoever city a man may journey, it shall be as if he were entering his own home. These things are obligatory and absolutely essential...."

So obligatoryand essential! I wonder what will make us consider these actions?

Regards Tony
.